Imaging in the era of risk-adapted treatment in colon cancer.

The treatment landscape for patients with colon cancer is continuously evolving. Risk-adapted treatment strategies, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, are slowly finding their way into clinical practice and guidelines. Radiologists are pivotal in guiding clinicians toward the most optimal treatment for each colon cancer patient. This review provides an overview of recent and upcoming advances in the diagnostic management of colon cancer and the radiologist's role in the multidisciplinary approach to treating colon cancer.

Outcomes and potential impact of a virtual hands-on training program on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential impact of a dedicated virtual training course on MRI staging confidence and performance in rectal cancer. METHODS: Forty-two radiologists completed a stepwise virtual training course on rectal cancer MRI staging composed of a pre-course (baseline) test with 7 test cases (5 staging, 2 restaging), a 1-day online workshop, 1 month of individual case readings (n = 70 cases with online feedback), a live online feedback session supervised by two expert faculty members, and a post-course test. The ESGAR structured reporting templates for (re)staging were used throughout the course. Results of the pre-course and post-course test were compared in terms of group interobserver agreement (Krippendorf's alpha), staging confidence (perceived staging difficulty), and diagnostic accuracy (using an expert reference standard). RESULTS: Though results were largely not statistically significant, the majority of staging variables showed a mild increase in diagnostic accuracy after the course, ranging between + 2% and + 17%. A similar trend was observed for IOA which improved for nearly all variables when comparing the pre- and post-course. There was a significant decrease in the perceived difficulty level (p = 0.03), indicating an improved diagnostic confidence after completion of the course. CONCLUSIONS: Though exploratory in nature, our study results suggest that use of a dedicated virtual training course and web platform has potential to enhance staging performance, confidence, and interobserver agreement to assess rectal cancer on MRI virtual training and could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists' expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training/teaching. This study shows promising results for a virtual web-based training program, which could be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training. KEY POINTS: • Rectal cancer MRI reporting quality is highly dependent on radiologists' expertise, stressing the need for dedicated training and teaching. • Using a dedicated virtual training course and web-based platform, encouraging first results were achieved to improve staging accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and interobserver agreement. • These exploratory results suggest that virtual training could thus be a good alternative (or addition) to in-person training.

Whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and CT in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer.

AIM: The aim was to explore how findings of whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DW-MRI) compared to the routine diagnostic workup with CT and/or 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with suspected recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: This was an exploratory retrospective analysis of 55 patients with a clinical suspicion of recurrent CRC who underwent DW-MRI following CT and/or FDG-PET/CT. Two readers in consensus interpreted all clinical imaging reports and converted each described lesion into a confidence score (1 = definitely benign to 5 = definitely malignant). DW-MRI findings were compared to the most recent previous CT or PET/CT. Any discrepant or additional DW-MRI findings were documented and compared with histology and/or clinical follow-up (if available). RESULTS: Whole-body MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DW-MRI) resulted in discrepant/additional findings in 26/55 (47%) cases; 23/37 (62%) compared to previous CT and 3/18 (17%) compared to previous PET/CT. These included 10 cases where DW-MRI converted previously inconclusive CT (n = 8) or PET/CT (n = 2) findings into a conclusive diagnosis, one where it contradicted a previous CT diagnosis of recurrence, five where DW-MRI diagnosed recurrent disease not previously reported on CT and 10 cases where DW-MRI detected additional lesions compared to CT (n = 9) or PET/CT (n = 1). Eighty-eight per cent of cases with discrepant/additional findings concerned patients with recurrent/metachronous peritoneal metastases. In total, DW-MRI resulted in 42 discrepant/additional lesions; the DW-MRI diagnosis was correct in 76% of these lesions and incorrect (false positive) in 7%. In the remaining 17%, no standard of reference was available. CONCLUSIONS: This explorative study suggests that DW-MRI may be of added value to patients with a clinical suspicion for recurrent CRC, in particular to identify patients with peritoneal metastases. DW-MRI mainly has potential as a 'problem-solver' in patients with inconclusive or negative findings on previous imaging (in particular CT) and to detect additional disease sites in patients already diagnosed with recurrent disease.

Diagnostic accuracy of CT for local staging of colon cancer: A nationwide study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of computed tomography (CT)-based staging in selecting high-risk colon cancer patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy while avoiding overtreatment. METHODS: Data of adult patients diagnosed with non-metastatic primary colon cancer in 2005-2020, who underwent surgical resection without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, were retrospectively collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Agreement between clinical and pathological evaluation for each T and N stage was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted to predict T3-T4 and N1-N2 stages, with histopathology as the reference standard. RESULTS: Data from 44,471 patients (median age, 71 years, 50% female) were evaluated. We included 38,915 patients with complete T stage and 39,565 patients with complete N stage for analyses. The overall clinical-pathological agreement for T stage was 59% and for N stage 57%. The sensitivity and specificity of CT to detect T3-T4 tumours were 80% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79, 0.80) and 76% (95% CI: 0.75, 0.77), respectively, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 92% (95% CI: 0.92, 0.92). The sensitivity and specificity of CT to detect N1-N2 category were 62% (95% CI: 0.61, 0.63) and 70% (95% CI: 0.69, 0.71), respectively, with PPV 60% (95% CI: 0.59, 0.60). CONCLUSION: CT-based staging shows limited accuracy in selecting colon cancer patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant therapy without risking overtreatment. Detection of lymph node metastases with CT remains unreliable.

Sense and nonsense of yT-staging on MRI after chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer.

AIM: The aim of this work was to investigate the value of rectal cancer T-staging on MRI after chemoradiotherapy (ymrT-staging) in relation to the degree of fibrotic transformation of the tumour bed as assessed using the pathological tumour regression grade (pTRG) of Mandard as a standard of reference. METHOD: Twenty two radiologists, including five rectal MRI experts and 17 'nonexperts' (general/abdominal radiologists), evaluated the ymrT stage on the restaging MRIs of 90 rectal cancer patients after chemoradiotherapy. The ymrT stage was compared with the final ypT stage at histopathology; the percentages of correct staging (ymrT = ypT), understaging (ymrT < ypT) and overstaging (ymrT > ypT) were calculated and compared between patients with predominant tumour at histopathology (pTRG4-5) and patients with predominant fibrosis (pTRG1-3). Interobserver agreement (IOA) was computed using Krippendorff's alpha. RESULTS: Average ymrT/ypT stage concordance was 48% for the experts and 43% for the nonexperts; ymrT/ypT stage concordance was significantly higher in the pTRG4-5 subgroup (58% vs. 41% for the pTRG1-3 group; p = 0.01), with the best results for the MRI experts. Overstaging was the main source of error, especially in the pTRG1-3 subgroup (average overstaging rate 38%-44% vs. 13%-55% in the pTRG4-5 subgroup). IOA was higher for the expert versus nonexpert readers (α = 0.67 vs. α = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: ymrT-staging is moderately accurate; accuracy is higher in poorly responding patients with predominant tumour but low in good responders with predominant fibrosis, resulting in significant overstaging. Radiologists should shift their focus from ymrT-staging to detecting gross residual (and progressive) disease, and identifying potential candidates for organ preservation who would benefit from further clinical and endoscopic evaluation to guide final treatment planning.

Development and multicenter validation of a multiparametric imaging model to predict treatment response in rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a multiparametric model to predict neoadjuvant treatment response in rectal cancer at baseline using a heterogeneous multicenter MRI dataset. METHODS: Baseline staging MRIs (T2W (T2-weighted)-MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) / apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)) of 509 patients (9 centres) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) were collected. Response was defined as (1) complete versus incomplete response, or (2) good (Mandard tumor regression grade (TRG) 1-2) versus poor response (TRG3-5). Prediction models were developed using combinations of the following variable groups: (1) Non-imaging: age/sex/tumor-location/tumor-morphology/CRT-surgery interval (2) Basic staging: cT-stage/cN-stage/mesorectal fascia involvement, derived from (2a) original staging reports, or (2b) expert re-evaluation (3) Advanced staging: variables from 2b combined with cTN-substaging/invasion depth/extramural vascular invasion/tumor length (4) Quantitative imaging: tumour volume + first-order histogram features (from T2W-MRI and DWI/ADC) Models were developed with data from 6 centers (n = 412) using logistic regression with the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selector Operator (LASSO) feature selection, internally validated using repeated (n = 100) random hold-out validation, and externally validated using data from 3 centers (n = 97). RESULTS: After external validation, the best model (including non-imaging and advanced staging variables) achieved an area under the curve of 0.60 (95%CI=0.48-0.72) to predict complete response and 0.65 (95%CI=0.53-0.76) to predict a good response. Quantitative variables did not improve model performance. Basic staging variables consistently achieved lower performance compared to advanced staging variables. CONCLUSIONS: Overall model performance was moderate. Best results were obtained using advanced staging variables, highlighting the importance of good-quality staging according to current guidelines. Quantitative imaging features had no added value (in this heterogeneous dataset). CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Predicting tumour response at baseline could aid in tailoring neoadjuvant therapies for rectal cancer. This study shows that image-based prediction models are promising, though are negatively affected by variations in staging quality and MRI acquisition, urging the need for harmonization. KEY POINTS: This multicenter study combining clinical information and features derived from MRI rendered disappointing performance to predict response to neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer. Best results were obtained with the combination of clinical baseline information and state-of-the-art image-based staging variables, highlighting the importance of good quality staging according to current guidelines and staging templates. No added value was found for quantitative imaging features in this multicenter retrospective study. This is likely related to acquisition variations, which is a major problem for feature reproducibility and thus model generalizability.

Predicting response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer via visual morphologic assessment and staging on baseline MRI: a multicenter and multireader study.

PURPOSE: Pre-treatment knowledge of the anticipated response of rectal tumors to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) could help to further optimize the treatment. Van Griethuysen et al. proposed a visual 5-point confidence score to predict the likelihood of response on baseline MRI. Aim was to evaluate this score in a multicenter and multireader study setting and compare it to two simplified (4-point and 2-point) adaptations in terms of diagnostic performance, interobserver agreement (IOA), and reader preference. METHODS: Twenty-two radiologists from 14 countries (5 MRI-experts,17 general/abdominal radiologists) retrospectively reviewed 90 baseline MRIs to estimate if patients would likely achieve a (near-)complete response (nCR); first using the 5-point score by van Griethuysen (1=highly unlikely to 5=highly likely to achieve nCR), second using a 4-point adaptation (with 1-point each for high-risk T-stage, obvious mesorectal fascia invasion, nodal involvement, and extramural vascular invasion), and third using a 2-point score (unlikely/likely to achieve nCR). Diagnostic performance was calculated using ROC curves and IOA using Krippendorf's alpha (α). RESULTS: Areas under the ROC curve to predict the likelihood of a nCR were similar for the three methods (0.71-0.74). IOA was higher for the 5- and 4-point scores (α=0.55 and 0.57 versus 0.46 for the 2-point score) with best results for the MRI-experts (α=0.64-0.65). Most readers (55%) favored the 4-point score. CONCLUSIONS: Visual morphologic assessment and staging methods can predict neoadjuvant treatment response with moderate-good performance. Compared to a previously published confidence-based scoring system, study readers preferred a simplified 4-point risk score based on high-risk T-stage, MRF involvement, nodal involvement, and EMVI.

Impact of centralization of care for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma: A historical cohort study from the Dutch mesothelioma expert centers.

BACKGROUND: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare and aggressive cancer that has a poor prognosis. An earlier population-based study found that the majority of Dutch patients do not receive anti-cancer treatment. In 2015, Dutch Malignant Mesothelioma care was centralized in two expert centers. We reviewed treatment patterns at these centers, to assess the impact of centralization of MPM care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data from all patients referred to the Dutch MPM expert centers from 2014 to 2020, were retrospectively collected. Descriptive statistics regarding referrals, patient and tumor characteristics, and treatment patterns were provided. Population-based incidence rates were provided by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2020, 78 patients were referred to the Dutch Mesothelioma expert centers, of whom 32 were female (41%). From 2014 to 2017, 27 patients were referred, whereas 51 patients were referred from 2018 to 2020. This represents about 24% and 61% of the estimated population incidence, respectively. Treatment patterns were comparable between both periods. Between 2014 and 2018, 33% of patients underwent surgery, 44% systemic therapy, and 22% received best supportive care (BSC), while this was 29%, 37%, and 33% respectively from 2018 to 2020. CONCLUSION: Centralization of care for patients with MPM resulted in an increase of annual referrals to the Dutch mesothelioma expert centers. While population-based incidence did not change during the study period, the absolute number of patients receiving treatment at our centers did increase. This might be considered a first important step towards better treatment for patients with this fatal disease.

MRI anatomy of the rectum: key concepts important for rectal cancer staging and treatment planning.

A good understanding of the MRI anatomy of the rectum and its surroundings is pivotal to ensure high-quality diagnostic evaluation and reporting of rectal cancer. With this pictorial review, we aim to provide an image-based overview of key anatomical concepts essential for treatment planning, response evaluation and post-operative assessment. These concepts include the cross-sectional anatomy of the rectal wall in relation to T-staging; differences in staging and treatment between anal and rectal cancer; landmarks used to define the upper and lower boundaries of the rectum; the anatomy of the pelvic floor and anal canal, the mesorectal fascia, peritoneum and peritoneal reflection; and guides to help discern different pelvic lymph node stations on MRI to properly stage regional and non-regional rectal lymph node metastases. Finally, this review will highlight key aspects of post-treatment anatomy, including the assessment of radiation-induced changes and the evaluation of the post-operative pelvis after different surgical resection and reconstruction techniques.

Pelvic CT in addition to MRI to differentiate between rectal and sigmoid cancer on imaging using the sigmoid take-off as a landmark.

BACKGROUND: The sigmoid take-off (STO) is a recently established landmark to discern rectal from sigmoid cancer on imaging. STO-assessment can be challenging on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) due to varying axial planes. PURPOSE: To establish the benefit of using computed tomography (CT; with consistent axial planes), in addition to MRI, to anatomically classify rectal versus sigmoid cancer using the STO. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A senior and junior radiologist retrospectively classified 40 patients with rectal/rectosigmoid cancers using the STO, first on MRI-only (sagittal and oblique-axial views) and then using a combination of MRI and axial CT. Tumors were classified as rectal/rectosigmoid/sigmoid (according to published STO definitions) and then dichotomized into rectal versus sigmoid. Diagnostic confidence was documented using a 5-point scale. RESULTS: Adding CT resulted in a change in anatomical tumor classification in 4/40 cases (10%) for the junior reader and in 6/40 cases (15%) for the senior reader. Diagnostic confidence increased significantly after adding CT for the junior reader (mean score 3.85 vs. 4.27; P < 0.001); confidence of the senior reader was not affected (4.28 vs. 4.25; P = 0.80). Inter-observer agreement was similarly good for MRI only (κ=0.77) and MRI + CT (κ=0.76). Readers reached consensus on the classification of rectal versus sigmoid cancer in 78%-85% of cases. CONCLUSION: Availability of a consistent axial imaging plane - in the case of this study provided by CT - in addition to a standard MRI protocol with sagittal and oblique-axial imaging views can be helpful to more confidently localize tumors using the STO as a landmark, especially for more junior readers.

Comparison of MRI response evaluation methods in rectal cancer: a multicentre and multireader validation study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare four previously published methods for rectal tumor response evaluation after chemoradiotherapy on MRI. METHODS: Twenty-two radiologists (5 rectal MRI experts, 17 general/abdominal radiologists) retrospectively reviewed the post-chemoradiotherapy MRIs of 90 patients, scanned at 10 centers (with non-standardized protocols). They applied four response methods; two based on T2W-MRI only (MRI tumor regression grade (mrTRG); split-scar sign), and two based on T2W-MRI+DWI (modified-mrTRG; DWI-patterns). Image quality was graded using a 0-6-point score (including slice thickness and in-plane resolution; sequence angulation; DWI b-values, signal-to-noise, and artefacts); scores < 4 were classified below average. Mixed model linear regression was used to calculate average sensitivity/specificity/accuracy to predict a complete response (versus residual tumor) and assess the impact of reader experience and image quality. Group interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated using Krippendorff's alpha. Readers were asked to indicate their preferred scoring method(s). RESULTS: Average sensitivity/specificity/accuracy was 57%/64%/62% (mrTRG), 36%/79%/66% (split-scar), 40%/79%/67% (modified-mrTRG), and 37%/82%/68% (DWI-patterns); mrTRG showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity and accuracy (p < 0.001) compared to the other methods. IOA was lower for the split scar method (0.18 vs. 0.39-0.43). Higher reader experience had a significant positive effect on diagnostic performance and IOA (except for the split scar sign); below-average imaging quality had a significant negative effect on diagnostic performance. DWI pattern was selected as the preferred method by 73% of readers. CONCLUSIONS: Methods incorporating DWI showed the most favorable results when combining diagnostic performance, IOA, and reader preference. Reader experience and image quality clearly impacted diagnostic performance emphasizing the need for state-of-the-art imaging and dedicated radiologist training. KEY POINTS: • In a multireader study comparing 4 MRI methods for rectal tumor response evaluation, those incorporating DWI showed the best results when combining diagnostic performance, IOA, and reader preference. • The most preferred method (by 73% of readers) was the "DWI patterns" approach with an accuracy of 68%, high specificity of 82%, and group IOA of 0.43. • Reader experience level and MRI quality had an evident effect on diagnostic performance and IOA.

Pearls and pitfalls of structured staging and reporting of rectal cancer on MRI: an international multireader study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate uniformity and pitfalls in structured radiological staging of rectal cancer. METHODS: Twenty-one radiologists (12 countries) staged 75 rectal cancers on MRI using a structured reporting template. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated as the percentage agreement between readers (categorical variables) and Krippendorff's α (continuous variables). Agreement with an expert consensus served as a surrogate standard of reference to estimate diagnostic accuracy. Polychoric correlation coefficients were used to assess correlations between diagnostic confidence and accuracy (=agreement with expert consensus). RESULTS: Uniformity to diagnose high-risk (≥cT3 ab) versus low-risk (≤cT3 cd) cT-stage, cN0 versus cN+, lateral nodes and tumour deposits, MRF and sphincter involvement, and solid versus mucinous tumours was high with IOA > 80% in the majority of cases (and >80% agreement with expert consensus). Results for assessing extramural vascular invasion, cT-stage (cT1-2/cT3/cT4a/cT4b), cN-stage (cN0/N1/N2), relation to the peritoneal reflection, extent of sphincter involvement (internal/intersphincteric/external) and morphology (solid/annular/semi-annular) were considerably poorer. IOA was high (α = 0.72-0.84) for tumour height/length and extramural invasion depth, but low for tumour-MRF distance and number of (suspicious) nodes (α = 0.05-0.55). There was a significant positive correlation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy (=agreement with expert consensus) (p < 0.001-p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: - Several staging items lacked sufficient reproducibility.- Results for cT- and N-staging g improved when using a dichotomized stratification.- Considering the significant correlation between diagnostic confidence and accuracy, a confidence level may be incorporated into structured reporting for specific items with low reproducibility. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Although structured reporting aims to achieve uniformity in reporting, several items lack sufficient reproducibility and might benefit from dichotomized assessment and incorporating confidence levels.

Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them: results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8th ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. METHODS: A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting. KEY POINTS: • Via a case-based online survey (incl. 321 respondents from 32 countries), we identified 16 problem areas related to the applicability of the TNM staging system for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer. • A multidisciplinary panel of experts recommended strategies on how to handle these problem areas, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define mesorectal fascia involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. • These recommendations may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.

Evolutions in rectal cancer MRI staging and risk stratification in The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: To analyze how the MRI reporting of rectal cancer has evolved (following guideline updates) in The Netherlands. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 712 patients (2011-2018) from 8 teaching hospitals in The Netherlands with available original radiological staging reports that were re-evaluated by a dedicated MR expert using updated guideline criteria. Original reports were classified as "free-text," "semi-structured," or "template" and completeness of reporting was documented. Patients were categorized as low versus high risk, first based on the original reports (high risk = cT3-4, cN+, and/or cMRF+) and then based on the expert re-evaluations (high risk = cT3cd-4, cN+, MRF+, and/or EMVI+). Evolutions over time were studied by splitting the inclusion period in 3 equal time periods. RESULTS: A significant increase in template reporting was observed (from 1.6 to 17.6-29.6%; p < 0.001), along with a significant increase in the reporting of cT-substage, number of N+ and extramesorectal nodes, MRF invasion and tumor-MRF distance, EMVI, anal sphincter involvement, and tumor morphology and circumference. Expert re-evaluation changed the risk classification from high to low risk in 18.0% of cases and from low to high risk in 1.7% (total 19.7%). In the majority (17.9%) of these cases, the changed risk classification was likely (at least in part) related to use of updated guideline criteria, which mainly led to a reduction in high-risk cT-stage and nodal downstaging. CONCLUSION: Updated concepts of risk stratification have increasingly been adopted, accompanied by an increase in template reporting and improved completeness of reporting. Use of updated guideline criteria resulted in considerable downstaging (of mainly high-risk cT-stage and nodal stage).

Differences in the distribution of peritoneal metastases in right- versus left-sided colon cancer on MRI.

PURPOSE: Right-sided colon tumors with peritoneal metastases (PM) are associated with a poorer prognosis than left-sided tumors. We hypothesized that a different pattern of spread could be characterized with abdominopelvic MRI. The objective of this study was to explore the spread of PM in relation to the primary tumor location on MRI. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with PM from colon cancer referred to be considered for CRS-HIPEC at a single tertiary referral center. Patients with colon cancer were eligible if they had undergone an abdominopelvic MRI scan following a clinical diagnosis of PM. The frequency of affected PCI regions on MRI (MRI-PCI) was assessed and compared between tumor sidedness. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were included with a median age of 65 (IQR: 56-72). 46% percent were male. The median MRI-PCI was 10 (IQR: 5-16) and 8 (IQR: 4-11) for right- and left-sided tumors, respectively (p = 0.39), and the median number of affected regions was 4 (IQR: 2-7 for right-sided and IQR 2-5 for left-sided tumors). PM was most frequently found close to the primary tumor. The odds ratio of patients with PM of left sided to be affected with PM in the upper abdominal regions was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.20-0.90) and with PM on the small bowels or mesentery was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.19-0.92) over a patient with PM of right-sided colon cancer. CONCLUSION: MRI can help to assess the spread of PM in colonic cancer. In right-sided tumors, the small bowel and upper abdominal regions are more frequently affected.

Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps: updated joint guidelines between the ESGAR, EAES, EFISDS and ESGE.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Primary investigation of polypoid lesions of the gallbladder should be with abdominal ultrasound. Routine use of other imaging modalities is not recommended presently, but further research is needed. In centres with appropriate expertise and resources, alternative imaging modalities (such as contrast-enhanced and endoscopic ultrasound) may be useful to aid decision-making in difficult cases. Strong recommendation, low-moderate quality evidence. 2. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with polypoid lesions of the gallbladder measuring 10 mm or more, providing the patient is fit for, and accepts, surgery. Multidisciplinary discussion may be employed to assess perceived individual risk of malignancy. Strong recommendation, low-quality evidence. 3. Cholecystectomy is suggested for patients with a polypoid lesion and symptoms potentially attributable to the gallbladder if no alternative cause for the patient's symptoms is demonstrated and the patient is fit for, and accepts, surgery. The patient should be counselled regarding the benefit of cholecystectomy versus the risk of persistent symptoms. Strong recommendation, low-quality evidence. 4. If the patient has a 6-9 mm polypoid lesion of the gallbladder and one or more risk factors for malignancy, cholecystectomy is recommended if the patient is fit for, and accepts, surgery. These risk factors are as follows: age more than 60 years, history of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), Asian ethnicity, sessile polypoid lesion (including focal gallbladder wall thickening > 4 mm). Strong recommendation, low-moderate quality evidence. 5. If the patient has either no risk factors for malignancy and a gallbladder polypoid lesion of 6-9 mm, or risk factors for malignancy and a gallbladder polypoid lesion 5 mm or less, follow-up ultrasound of the gallbladder is recommended at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Follow-up should be discontinued after 2 years in the absence of growth. Moderate strength recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. 6. If the patient has no risk factors for malignancy, and a gallbladder polypoid lesion of 5 mm or less, follow-up is not required. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. 7. If during follow-up the gallbladder polypoid lesion grows to 10 mm, then cholecystectomy is advised. If the polypoid lesion grows by 2 mm or more within the 2-year follow-up period, then the current size of the polypoid lesion should be considered along with patient risk factors. Multidisciplinary discussion may be employed to decide whether continuation of monitoring, or cholecystectomy, is necessary. Moderate strength recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. 8. If during follow-up the gallbladder polypoid lesion disappears, then monitoring can be discontinued. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. SOURCE AND SCOPE: These guidelines are an update of the 2017 recommendations developed between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery-European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A targeted literature search was performed to discover recent evidence concerning the management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps. The changes within these updated guidelines were formulated after consideration of the latest evidence by a group of international experts. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. KEY POINT: • These recommendations update the 2017 European guidelines regarding the management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps.

A decade of multi-modality PET and MR imaging in abdominal oncology.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate trends observed in a decade of published research on multimodality PET(/CT)+MR imaging in abdominal oncology, and to explore how these trends are reflected by the use of multimodality imaging performed at our institution. METHODS: First, we performed a literature search (2009-2018) including all papers published on the multimodality combination of PET(/CT) and MRI in abdominal oncology. Retrieved papers were categorized according to a structured labelling system, including study design and outcome, cancer and lesion type under investigation and PET-tracer type. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and evolutions over time were plotted graphically. Second, we performed a descriptive analysis of the numbers of MRI, PET/CT and multimodality PET/CT+MRI combinations (performed within a ≤14 days interval) performed during a similar time span at our institution. RESULTS: Published research papers involving multimodality PET(/CT)+MRI combinations showed an impressive increase in numbers, both for retrospective combinations of PET/CT and MRI, as well as hybrid PET/MRI. Main areas of research included new PET-tracers, visual PET(/CT)+MRI assessment for staging, and (semi-)quantitative analysis of PET-parameters compared to or combined with MRI-parameters as predictive biomarkers. In line with literature, we also observed a vast increase in numbers of multimodality PET/CT+MRI imaging in our institutional data. CONCLUSIONS: The tremendous increase in published literature on multimodality imaging, reflected by our institutional data, shows the continuously growing interest in comprehensive multivariable imaging evaluations to guide oncological practice. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The role of multimodality imaging in oncology is rapidly evolving. This paper summarizes the main applications and recent developments in multimodality imaging, with a specific focus on the combination of PET+MRI in abdominal oncology.

Perioperative Systemic Therapy vs Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Alone for Resectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: To date, no randomized clinical trials have investigated perioperative systemic therapy relative to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) alone for resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). Objective: To assess the feasibility and safety of perioperative systemic therapy in patients with resectable CPM and the response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, parallel-group phase 2 randomized clinical trial in all 9 Dutch tertiary centers for the surgical treatment of CPM enrolled participants between June 15, 2017, and January 9, 2019. Participants were patients with pathologically proven isolated resectable CPM who did not receive systemic therapy within 6 months before enrollment. Interventions: Randomization to perioperative systemic therapy or CRS-HIPEC alone. Perioperative systemic therapy comprised either four 3-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), six 2-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), or six 2-week neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) and either four 3-week adjuvant cycles of capecitabine or six 2-week adjuvant cycles of fluorouracil with leucovorin. Bevacizumab was added to the first 3 (CAPOX) or 4 (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity. Key secondary outcomes were centrally assessed rates of objective radiologic and major pathologic response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Analyses were done modified intention-to-treat in patients starting neoadjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or undergoing upfront surgery (control arm). Results: In 79 patients included in the analysis (43 [54%] men; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years), experimental (n = 37) and control (n = 42) arms did not differ significantly regarding the proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC (33 of 37 [89%] vs 36 of 42 [86%] patients; risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.23; P = .74) and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity (8 of 37 [22%] vs 14 of 42 [33%] patients; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.31-1.37; P = .25). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Objective radiologic and major pathologic response rates of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment were 28% (9 of 32 evaluable patients) and 38% (13 of 34 evaluable patients), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized phase 2 trial in patients diagnosed with resectable CPM, perioperative systemic therapy seemed feasible, safe, and able to induce response of CPM, justifying a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02758951.

Neoadjuvant Cytoreductive Treatment With BRAF/MEK Inhibition of Prior Unresectable Regionally Advanced Melanoma to Allow Complete Surgical Resection, REDUCTOR: A Prospective, Single-arm, Open-label Phase II Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potency of short-term neoadjuvant cytoreductive therapy with dabrafenib plus trametinib (BRAF and MEK inhibitor) to allow for radical surgical resection in patients with unresectable locally advanced melanoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Approximately 5% of stage III melanoma patients presents with unresectable locally advanced disease, making standard of care with resection followed by adjuvant systemic therapy impossible. Although neoadjuvant targeted therapy has shown promising results in resectable stage III melanoma, its potency to enable surgical resection in patients with primarily unresectable locally advanced stage III melanoma is still unclear. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with unresectable BRAF-mutated locally advanced stage IIIC or oligometastatic stage IV melanoma were included. After 8 weeks of treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, evaluation by positron emission tomography/computed tomography and physical examination were used to assess sufficient downsizing of the tumor to enable resection. The primary objective was the percentage of patients who achieved a radical (R0) resection. RESULTS: Between August 2014 and March 2019, 21 patients (20/21 stage IIIC American Joint Committee on Cancer staging manual 7th edition) were included. Planned inclusion of 25 patients was not reached due to slow accrual and changing treatment landscape. Despite this, the predefined endpoint was successfully met. In 18/21 (86%) patients a resection was performed, of which 17 were R0 resections. At a median follow-up of 50 months (interquartile range 37.7-57.1 months), median recurrence-free survival was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval 7.52-not reached) in patients undergoing surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, single-arm, open-label phase II trial, shows neoadjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib as a potent cytoreductive treatment, allowing radical resection of metastases in 17/21 (81%) patients with prior unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

The Diagnostic Value of FDG-PET/CT for Urachal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urachal carcinoma (UrC) is a rare malignancy that often presents at an advanced stage with metastases in up to a quarter of patients. There is no consensus on the optimal form of staging for patients with UrC. In the present study, we evaluated the diagnostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emitted tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) for UrC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated 40 consecutive patients who were staged for urachal cancer between 2010 and 2020. They underwent a total of 62 FDG-PET/CTs (40 for primary staging, and 22 during follow-up), which were compared with standard-of-care contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). The metabolic detection of primary tumors, lymph node metastases (LNMs), peritoneal metastases (PMs), distant metastases (DMs), and local recurrence by FDG-PET/CT was evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated compared with CECT. Histopathology or follow-up imaging was the reference standard. RESULTS: Of all 40 patients, 33 patients (83%) had urachal adenocarcinoma-26 (65%) with a mucinous component and 7 (17%) with invasive urothelial carcinoma. All local UrC tumors could be visualized on CT, and 80% showed increased FDG uptake. At initial staging, FDG-PET/CT detected FDG-avid LNMs, PMs, and DMs in 50%, 17%, and 25% of patients, respectively. These metastases were also visualized on CECT. During follow up, FDG-PET/CT revealed FDG-avid local recurrences that were not seen on CT in two out of eight patients (25%). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that most UrC can be visualized on FDG-PET/CT. At initial diagnosis, FDG-PET/CT does not seem to yield additional information compared with CECT; however, FDG-PET/CT may be helpful during follow-up. This is a small study, and the findings should be corroborated with larger series.